Kristy's Indy Media Bloghttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 04:48:05 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngKristy's Indy Media Bloghttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com
The smearing of Shirley Sherrodhttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-smearing-of-shirley-sherrod/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-smearing-of-shirley-sherrod/#respondTue, 27 Nov 2012 01:41:40 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=57Continue reading]]>On July 19, it took less than 10 hours to get a federal employee to step down from her position. Shirley Sherrod’s name and character was smeared when blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a heavily-edited 2.5 minute video clip on his website, BigGovernment.com and claimed racism in the NAACP. Other conservative bloggers, FOX news, CNN and even the NAACP accepted the video clip as true and complete, and immediately disproved of and insulted Sherrod for her supposed racism against a white farmer. Even when Sherrod and the farmers that she helped gave interviews to explain what really happened, they were not believed. It wasn’t until NAACP admitted being fooled and released the full video, did everyone finally realize that Sherrod was telling the truth. Conservatives blamed the White House for creating the hoax to discredit Fox News.

I’m not surprised that an edited video spread quickly and people believed it without doing research on where it came from. I’m not surprised that FOX and other conservative media outlets picked it up and used it to try and discredit the NAACP and to support the claims of reverse-racism. I am, however, shocked that the NAACP would also immediately denounce Sherrod and defend their own organization. If Sherrod or anybody who was being honored by them, had said racist statements during a speech, wouldn’t they know about it? Wouldn’t it have created some sort of drama? I’m just really surprised that the organization that fights so hard for civil rights would believe the video and not do their own research on what exactly was said before they posted their own press release to defend their image.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-smearing-of-shirley-sherrod/feed/0kzhenPre-fundraising for Post-Production – An inside perspective to using Kickstarterhttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/pre-fundraising-for-post-production-an-inside-perspective-to-using-kickstarter/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/pre-fundraising-for-post-production-an-inside-perspective-to-using-kickstarter/#respondMon, 26 Nov 2012 20:36:41 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=20Continue reading]]>Over the summer, I had a remote internship where I worked with two documentary filmmakers to raise post-production funds for their feature-length film Top Spin. The film details the stories of three teenage table tennis champions, as they train, compete and prepare for the 2012 London Olympics.

In a month we reached our goal and raised just over $75,000. In this post, I will talk about four important strategies that the filmmakers and producers used to increase their pool of possible donors.

1) Swag

People want to help your cause, but they also want to get something in return. Whether it’s a thank you credit or an autographed card or a ping pong party, whatever you can offer for the smallest and biggest donations are always appreciated.

2) Exclusive videos and updates

You only have a month to gain as many supporters as you can to reach your goal, you want to keep people engaged in your project and show them how much you have to offer. Every week, there was a new and cool video that the filmmakers posted to get more eyes on their page.

3) Outreach over social media and the internet

In order to spread the word about our project, my duties were to contact blogs, forums and use social media to get people interested in the niches of the documentary (Asian American community, table tennis lovers, athletes, etc.). People blogged about us, argued about us over table tennis forums, and shared with their friends.

4) Plea from the filmmakers

Towards the end, the filmmakers made videos of themselves and special guests with pleas to support the project. This gave a personal touch to it and fans could see how much the filmmakers cared and actually wanted to do this.

Hidden in the overlapping problems of sex trafficking and forced prostitution, gender-based violence, and maternal mortality is the single most vital opportunity of our time — and women are seizing it. From Somaliland to Cambodia to Afghanistan, women’s oppression is being confronted head on and real, meaningful solutions are being fashioned. Change is happening, and it’s happening now.

Journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn took on this urgent moral challenge in 2009 with their acclaimed best-selling book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide (already in its 25th printing in hardback). They encouraged readers all over the world to do the same.

When I first heard about the Half the Sky film, I was really excited to see it. I was excited to learn about how women around the world are organizing and showing resistance and agency against the oppressive patriarchy we live in, as well as to learn about different current issues that does not get enough attention. But what was shown in the film was almost the complete opposite of what I expected.
In Half the Sky, Nicolas Kristof is the main character of the film. It’s not so much about the agency and resistance of these young women who are living in poverty and face sexual violence, lack of opportunity for education, etc., it’s the story of Kristof discovering these girls and using celebrities and his film crew to “save” them.
Kristof is paternalistic, insensitive and his presentation in the film is absolutely disgusting and almost makes his work invalid. In the film, Kristof gets up close and personal with girls and asks them to retell their traumatic experiences (“tell me about your rape?”) or he asks them leading and insensitive questions (“Does your father beat you if you don’t sell enough tickets?” “Is she a good enough student to go to university?”). Meanwhile he has a pen and a pad ready to write down what the girls say as the camera zooms into the girls’ faces until they feel they need to put their head down in shame.

The film focused on the interpersonal forces that aided in the girls oppressions as well as had a very narrow framework of the institutions like the police or local government. However, it did not look at the larger structural forces that put these women and their communities in poverty in the first place. Such larger forces that Kristof and WuDunn, (his wife who also visited these countries as foreign corespondents and wrote about these issues but was not in the film), could have talked about were war, U.S. military intervention, globalization, imperialism, etc. Because all these countries are impoverished, there definitely could have been connections made about these larger structures.

Kristof’s use of celebrities and the way they look down on these girls triggers emotions of pity for them (Kristof and his celebrity guest must have said “I’m soo proud of you” at least 5 times to each of the girls). And although this “pity” is really what captures audience members who are not critical of the film’s approach and can then immediately pull out their checkbook to “save” these “broken, shattered girls” (Kristof’s words), it removes the agency and efforts of resistance from these young women. It completely dehumanizes them as people when they are only looked at as victims who need to be saved or another charity case that makes viewers feel good about themselves. His approach has completely commodified the pain of these young women.

Furthermore, the way that these stories are presented, it’s as if these issues of gendered violence, education inequalities, sex-trafficking, etc. aren’t happening right now in the United States. We don’t need to look down on third world women and try to help them fight oppression, when these same things are happening in the United States. We are not the perfect, model country that has the responsibility to fix the problems (most of the time that we had a part in causing) of other countries unless it’s in a way that is working with the people in them and leading in ways other than economically.

Although WuDunn was also a co-author, researcher, and foreign correspondent who did research in these countries and on these issues, she is only in the film as a figure head who does the introductions.

When she came to Ithaca College on Thursday Nov. 1, to be part of the provost’s Difficult Dialogues discussion series, a few friends and I thought it was important to ask her these questions that we were left with after watching the film.
My question was: Your husband is the one who gets most of the criticisms because he is the person in the film who asks insensitive and leading questions. However, you were also part of the movement and have been in these countries doing research. How do you and your husband react to these criticisms and do you take any issue with the film?
Her response was pretty much along the lines of: I’m sorry that you feel so hostile about this. If you think you have a better way of doing this, then you do it.

I was shocked at her response because I thought that at the least she would be able to recognize critisms even if she didn’t agree with them. For me, their work truly shows how mainstream media can present to their audience a certain idea/issue without looking at what are the real causes behind a popular narrative or problem. It is just reporting what is seen from the point of view of the journalist’s biases.

Speaking of, the Ithacan did an equally biased job of covering what happened during the event.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/how-2-nyt-journalists-show-the-biases-inaccuracies-and-unchallenged-popular-narratives-in-mainstream-media/feed/0kzhenTransparency is the new objectivity; It’s changing journalismhttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity-its-changing-journalism/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity-its-changing-journalism/#respondThu, 08 Nov 2012 19:21:36 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=36Continue reading]]>I really like this post that blogger David Weinberger wrote about how online blogging and linking to sources (transparency) is the new best tool in seeing whether journalists are actually objective. He points out that in print, when a credible source is listed, the reader can just assume that both the source and the writer can be trusted.

However, since blogging uses the online medium and people can write whatever they want there is less of a trust factor that comes with readership and that’s why linking is so important for bloggers. When readers can see where the blogger is getting their information from, they can see whether the blogger is falling on the side of popular narratives and biases or actually considering other voices/ideas.

Some of the comments point to how transparency should not replace objectivity and I completely agree. Journalists should still try to be objective by reaching out to different perspectives, telling the whole story and challenging popular narratives — but at the least transparency can allow the reader to assess whether they want to trust the “objective” agenda of the writer.

I also want to add that blogging and the internet has really changed journalism because readers can challenge writers immediately and that’s another form of transparency because different perspectives can be brought in and seen by others. In print, if a reader had criticisms of the article, they would have to write a letter to the editor, which is then the choice of the editors to publish in their next issue.

This image is from a friend’s facebook and was taken near my high school one block from the Hudson River. The ledge that the man is walking across is about 3 or 4 feet high.

An image that shows how destructive the wind was.

The wind bent this steel post at a 90 degree angle.

Please keep everyone affected by this storm in your thoughts. The city is currently still on lock down as the tunnels are blocked and public transportation has been shut down. I don’t think people in the city have ever experienced anything like this and it can be very terrifying. And let’s not forget those who own houses on the shores who have their houses and possessions being washed away.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/sandy-hits-east-coast/feed/0kzhensandyOMGFree Lovehttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/free-love/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/free-love/#respondTue, 09 Oct 2012 20:51:58 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=15Continue reading]]>During the Victorian Era, there were a number of publications that advocated for “free love,” the concept that woman should be free to move in and out of marriage. Within the broad topic of “free love,” there was also talk of expanding the sexual vocabulary, concept that sexual intercourse can be for pleasure, importance of sex education, and that marriage was like “legalized sex abuse” (Streitmatter, 70).

My reactions after reading this chapter:

I thought it was very interesting that Anthony Comstock was funded by financier J. Pierpont Morgan and soap magnate Samuel Colgate to censor sexual reform publications. From the reading I can speculate that these very men were like other wealthy Victorian men who had multiple partners while advocating for respectable persons to follow strict morals of behavior. If my speculations are correct, not only are these men hypocritical but they also hire others to censor those who are exposing the truth. This reminds me of corporations and wealthy people who try to censor independent media and organizations that reveal corruption, hypocracy and truth.

Angela and Ezra Heywoods published The Word, a monthly sexual reform journal. One of their arguments in the journal was that marriage was so terrible that babies born to unwed mothers were superior than babies born from marriages because “the marriage institution … destroys love, hinders intelligent reproduction, causes domestic discord, and corrupts and poisons the source of life” (Streitmatter, 74). Although I found myself agreeing or sympathizing to much of this chapter, this particular argument I just cannot agree or see any truth in.

I’m interested in also looking at the institution of marriage presently. In the United States the divorce rate is about 50% but does that mean that divorce/separation is widely accepted? I would argue that divorce is still not accepted in some cultures. I’m also interested in discussing the prevalence of marital rape and relational abuse that occurs within marriages today. I feel like this topic in particular, is not given enough attention.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/free-love/feed/0kzhenDemocracy Now! Expands the Debatehttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/democracy-now-expands-the-debate/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/democracy-now-expands-the-debate/#respondThu, 04 Oct 2012 07:36:48 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=10Continue reading]]>While most people watched the 2012 Presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney (which obviously only included the Republican and Democratic party), Democracy Now! aired a presidential debate that included two third-party candidates. DN live-streamed the presidential debate and after responses made by Obama and Romney, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party were allowed to add their own campaign platforms.

I though it was really great that DN did this and allowed the third party candidates to have a voice in this presidential debate. Not only do they get media coverage for their platform, which doesn’t get as much coverage or advertisements because it is a third party, but they also challenged the two main candidates. For example, Obama spoke a lot about his dedication to improving education system in the country and his “Race to the Top” campaign. Romney also mentioned his dedication to education, however it was Jill Stein who pointed out that Obama’s educational plans were only continuing to teach kids “to the test” and did not actually improve the core problems of our public education system today. Another example: Later on in the debate, Rocky Anderson spoke about his efforts to decrease the country’s deficit. He said he was going to cut down on incarceration, which is a topic that neither main candidates brought up, and that he wanted to reform our healthcare system so that we would stop relying on for-profit corporations that end up giving people poor health anyway.

I’m really glad that DN provided an alternative to the presidential debate that most other people were watching. At a time as crucial as this, where we decide who will be our future leader in this country, it’s really important that we get all access to all parties and look at alternative ways that we can eliminate the deficit, reform on healthcare, without relying on large corporate private companies etc.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/democracy-now-expands-the-debate/feed/0kzhenSociologist Michael Omi challenges colorblindnesshttps://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/sociologist-michael-omi-challenges-colorblindness/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/sociologist-michael-omi-challenges-colorblindness/#respondSat, 22 Sep 2012 00:39:02 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=6Continue reading]]>On September 14, Dr. Michael Omi brought up a number of thought-provoking points in his presentation Colorblindness: The Contradictions of Racial Classifications. The practice of colorblindness is to pretty much treat everyone the same way regardless of their skin color. It seems like a good idea, but as Dr. Omi pointed out in his presentation, to be colorblind is to deny the race that informs one’s perceptions; shapes one’s attitudes; and influences one’s individual, collective and institutional practices. In a society that has been and still is racist, to be colorblind means to ignore the marginalization that people of color face and pretend that it does not exist for the purpose of putting everyone on the same playing field (even though they are using different equipment).

Dr. Omi tells us about California’s Proposition 54, a proposal to remove all racial classifications from public programming. (However, police were still allowed to use race as a description in their work, which makes me think that this also warrants them to continue to racially-profile people of color.) The purpose of this doing away with racial categories according to proponent Ward Connerly is that it is essential to the realization of a color-blind society. He argued that state-based racial categorization historically was used to oppress and exclude groups of color. However, in a society that still practices racism within its systematic and institutional structures, without racially-classified data, we wouldn’t be able to observe patterns of racial inequality.

The examination of this proposal also leads us to look at if race is a meaningful and useful genetic concept. The emerging field of pharmacogenomics looks at medicine that is tailored to a certain race because a disease is more prevalent for that community. For example, hypertension among black people. The problem with this medicine and this emerging field, is that if we think only in terms of genetics when looking at why a disease may be more prevelant, then we are ignoring the environmental factors that aid a person in being unhealthy. Examples include where one lives and exposure to toxicity in the air, water, food; access to healthcare and wellness during lifetime; and the general stress that comes with experiencing marginalization. I think one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Omi’s speech was made from Troy Duster. Regarding a disproportionate amount of black people experiencing hypertension, he said “If you follow me around Nordstrom, put me jail nine times more often, refuse to give me a bank loan, I may get hypertensive.”

In my opinion, colorblindness does not work because we still live in a racist society. We cannot simply ignore the lived experiences of others based on their skin colors, because people are treated unfairly based on their skin color. This is also why it doesn’t matter if race is a genetic issue where people can trace what part of the world they come from because when people look at each other, they are not thinking about the different ethnicities of one’s ancestry. They are thinking in terms of racial/ethnic categories. Also, we cannot ignore the inherent stereotypes that have been imbedded into our minds from the media. We are monitored to think about racial hierarchies.

Overall, I thought that Dr. Omi brought up a lot of interesting points about colorbliness and whether it is contradictory. However, I think that I would have liked it more if he would have brought some more information that was not already discussed in his article Slippin’ into Darkness.

]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/sociologist-michael-omi-challenges-colorblindness/feed/0kzhenHello!https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/hello-world/
https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/hello-world/#respondThu, 06 Sep 2012 06:28:54 +0000http://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/?p=1Continue reading]]>Welcome to my blog! This is where I will be blogging about different sources of independent media. I hope you enjoy!]]>https://kzhenindymedia.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/hello-world/feed/0kzhen